From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: redisplay system of emacs Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:32:22 +0900 Message-ID: <87ock8pb21.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <4B633B7C.8030700@gmx.de> <873a1nvlki.fsf@gmail.com> <4B65B180.5010202@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1265080867 1078 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2010 03:21:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 03:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: grischka , paul.r.ml@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 02 04:21:04 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc9Jl-0003jB-VN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:20:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48240 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nc9Jk-0000M5-RM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:20:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nc9Jf-0000Lg-7v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:20:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46654 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nc9Jd-0000LY-UM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:20:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc9Jc-0007JU-B0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:20:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:53911) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc9Jb-0007Ik-MF; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:20:36 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77071535AC; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:20:33 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5A0FE1A3434; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:32:22 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" a03421eb562b XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:120811 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > The concept of fairness plays no role in the study of ecosystems. We > > don't ask whether it is fair for an owl to eat a mouse, or for a mouse > > to eat a plant. We just note that these interactions are part of the > > system. > > But we are not owls or mice. Humans in between have become able > to ask whether it is fair towards other humans or future generations > or even nature, if we burn oil for energy, as an example. > > Exactly. This aspect of things is what the term "ecosystem" does not > recognize, and that's why it is better not to use that term here. I really am amused by this turn of discussion, because advocates of copyleft are in precisely the same position. Their *amoral*, objective analysis of human behavior is that some humans will try to restrict the software freedom of others, and the vast majority of those others will see no profit in resisting. Therefore, a free software license that *deliberately restricts* licensees' freedom is carefully designed, a profoundly moral act. In fact, even in the presence of copyright or patent, an individual always has the right to choose only software under a free license, at the cost of giving up proprietary software, thus preserving his own freedom. Therefore copyleft, restricting the freedom to bargain away the "four freedoms" in return for something else of value, can be justified morally *only* by reference to the software "ecosystem", ie, emergent effects of your use of non-free software on my freedom.[1] As far as I can see, opposing the use of the *word* "ecosystem" to clarify how the analysis is conducted is simply an attempt to restrict the field of discussion of your position and policies to ground you're comfortable defending. Footnotes: [1] Strictly speaking, "but I *like* to apply copyleft licenses to software I write" is an unanswerable moral justification -- but that doesn't justify asking others to use copyleft for their work.